December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May writes: > At 3:57 PM 5/14/96, Doug Hughes wrote: > > >I wouldn't normally respond to such an offtopic post, but this post is > >so egregious I couldn't let it pass. Who says they make a choice to live > >in rural areas? Do they also choose not to have enough money to pay > >for shoes? So, because they live in a poor district they are not entitled > > Your shoe example is apt. Fact is, we *don't* pay for people's shoes. Why > should we pay for their Net access when we don't pay for their shoes, or > their food, or their electricity, or their phone bill, or their cable t.v. > subscription? Many of these things seem like higher priorities than being > able to "surf the Net." Well, this sort of subsidization is in the grand tradition of the Rural Electrification Act of the new deal era and it seems to have worked out pretty well. The point being that we, as a social group, benefit when everyone has access to certain pieces of the general infrastructure: if everyone has electricity then appliance manufacturers can sell to everyone, etc. This is particularly true when it comes to services like electricity, phones, etc. where it is much easier to wire up the cities than areas with a lower population density. BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike all of the other rural subsidies you pay for as an urban dweller (with the possible exception of the phone subsidy), this is one which has direct benefit to you. Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by now. So what was your point? jim

1 0

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:27 AM GMT 5/15/96, Jim McCoy wrote: >BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification >act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. >The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ >according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike Au contraire! Speaking for myself, the value of _my_ net connection has been going _down_ these past few years as more yahoos (TM of The Yahoo Corporation) got connected and as congestion clogged the networks. So, on this basis alone I am opposed to the "Rural Datafication" public works project! But seriously, Internet connections are already quite cheap. We've had this debate a couple of times before here on Cypherpunks, and each time many of us remain unconvinced that something like Net connections, which are so well-handled by private enterprise and which depend so heavily on technological innovation, are best handled by a socialized effort. There are deep reasons why such government-led programs tend to freeze progress...this is a longstanding debate topic in many forums, so I won't argue this point right now. ... >Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the >increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and >their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable >TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by >now. So what was your point? In point of fact, whether or not these things (electricity, phones) *are* in fact being subsidized by urban dwellers (and there is some doubt that this is the case, as it's frequently _much_ cheaper to string electrical and phone lines in rural areas than in congested urban areas), this is no reason to socialize Internet connections. (And my local ISP is certainly not being taxed to pay for lines in Mendota and East Gittyup, and I won't vote for any scheme which taxes _me_ to subsidize those locales.) Socializing Net connections would likely have various bad side effects, such as freezing the state of development of certain services. (And socializing access also plays into the hands of those who seek "democratic control" of content, always a bad thing.) By not socializing the deployment of Net connections, the eventual (and ever-evolving) solutions can be cleaner and better than if the deployment is done by government action, or with government complicity. Look at cable t.v. for an example of how local community government sought "universal access" by granting franchises for universal connections and forcing cable companies to provide service to uneconomical areas. The result is that most community cable systems are very limited, with a decaying infrastructure and heavy price regulation. (I should remind readers that a "Datification" program also implies rate regulation, endless hearings before rate increases are granted, and so forth. Before deregulation of several industries, this was how things happened. In cable t.v., it still happens this way.) A consequence is that many customers leapfrog right over local cable and go directly for satellite dishes. While the local community cable systems and their government partners could (and did) keep out other cable competitors, this became less and less possible with satellite dishes. Zoning laws were used to limit BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes, the big 8-foot and larger C-band dishes). But as the Ku-band dishes (mentioned favorably in my 1988 Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, interestingly enough) became available, even the most restrictive zoning ordinances became unenforceable....dishes could be in attics, on balconies, even covered with fake boulders! The cable companies and "community access" adovcates are having conniption fits. (This is having yet another interesting side effect: the wealthy who can afford digital DSS dishes are suddenly very uninterested in local cable problems, and the impetus for improvement is lost. Obviously the "poor" are then left with a decaying, outmoded infrastructure. Even as a Darwinian, I have to feel for them. They got sold a bill of goods, about how awarding "the franchise" to TCI or Sonic or Galactronic Cable would result in "universal access," and now they're stuck.) In my own case, I skipped cable and installed a DSS dish...150 or more channels, at least 20 movies on at any given time (not even counting the Pay Per View movies, of which there are at least 30-40), financial news, CNN, etc. Plus, a digital output connector for (Real Soon Now, they claim) a PageSat-type Usenet and Web page feed, using phone links for the back link. I submit this as an example of where the free market is providing a better solution than "community access cable" did. In fact, the socialization of cable held cable back. I don't want "Rural Datification" when there is no compelling need, and a lot of free market alternatives emerging. I doubt many farmers or Montana cabin dwellers want it either. --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Nature of Rights
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 5/14/96, Allen Ethridge wrote: >And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the >government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they >are meaningless. I presume you're speaking about my point.... This is generally not the place to have long debates about the nature of government and of civil rights, but it bears mentioning that the Constitution of the United States _is_ primarily about the delineation of the role of government, not of private entities, corporations, clubs, social groups, etc. Thus, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" refers to freedom from coercion by government about religion, and to separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with whether you or I feel our "rights" within the First Unified Temple of Baal are being properly respected. And so on for various other enumerated rights, including the right of free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free association, and so on. As nearly every argument in this area points out, your right to free speech does not mean you get to use my newspaper, nor my public address system, nor my computer service. The so-called innate or intrinsic rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") are basically bromides. Philosophical arguing points for a view of government as being limited in scope. Converting a slogan like this to assume this means government will guarantee jobs for all, or will provide two cars in every driveway, or whatever, has been fraught with problems. Not the least of which are that such goals are inimical to the actual, enumerated rights. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Rural Datafication (Was Re: Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"mccoy(a)communities.com" 15-MAY-1996 00:55:57.23 >BTW, while there may have been a decent argument against the electrification >act, I think that you are paddling upstream when it comes to net connections. >The value of your net connection (or any connection to the net) _increases_ >according to the number of people who are connected to the network. Unlike >all of the other rural subsidies you pay for as an urban dweller (with the >possible exception of the phone subsidy), this is one which has direct benefit >to you. If it was a direct benefit, we'd chose it freely without being drafted by the use of phone bills. Look at Juno et al - that's a circumstance in which interconnection is taking place via the free market. Moreover, you're assuming that there's some reason that I _want_ to be connected to those with insufficient education, etcetera to move out of the rural areas we're talking about. I know these places; I grew up in a town surrounded by hillbillies (Middlesboro, KY). Believe me, I have no desire to have further contact with them - via the net or any other method. >Oh yeah, and you are already subsidizing their phone bill (at least the >increased cost of running a line out to them and maintaining that line), and >their electricity bill, and satellite TV took care of any need to run cable >TV lines out there or else you would also be subsidizing their cable TV by >now. So what was your point? My tax dollars (and that's what the proposed phone bill changes are in many ways - they're government requirements for people to pay money) are also paying for a lot of other things I don't approve of, such as the drug war. This isn't a reason to fund more of it. -Allen

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 14-MAY-1996 13:21:35.36 >All this "suck it up and get printed" talk has me somewhat disconcerted >with the list. Have many here not consistantly indicated that privacy is >something that must be self assured? In most cases, such invasions of privacy are voluntary on the employee's part - because he/she chose to be employed there. There are some cases in which the employee doesn't have much other choice: A. The employer is required by the government to collect this information. Such requirements can be direct (laws to do this or else) or indirect (laws to do this or not get government contracts - rather like Clinton's attempt to force contractors to give in to all union demands by forbidding replacement workers). B. The employer is a monopsonic or ogliosonic buyer of the services that the employee can practically provide. While an ogliosonic or monopsonic corporation (including a group of employers that has decided to all follow one policy on such cases) isn't a full-scale government, it's still got enough power to qualify for limits in my book. C. The employer is a government, and thus shouldn't be allowed to go beyond the minimal necessary intrusion to do its job of protecting individual choices. >I think that unless proper means are taken to safeguard information, >social security number, license plates, and fingerprint records included, >that the individual is perfectly within rights to take his or her own >safeguarding initiatives. Social security numbers and license plates are forced upon one by a government. One did not choose to have these pieces of identification; these are therefore exceptions to the above rule. >Where those methods are not intended to simply evade prosecution, but >rather to foil extreme recordkeeping, I believe them legitimate. I would hope that you would also count evading illegitimate prosecution (drug laws, censorship laws, et al) as legitimate uses of them. I would. -Allen

1 0

(ALERT) Senators who introduce new crypto bill need support (5/14/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

======================================================================== Campaign for Secure Communications Online May 13, 1996 BI-PARTISAN SENATORS INTRODUCE NEW CRYPTO BILL S.1726 PROMISES TO FREE ENCRYPTION FROM COLD WAR REGULATORY STRANGLEHOLD Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact until June 15, 1996 ________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS The Latest News What You Can Do Now Crypto Factoid Chronology of Crypto Export Liberalization Bill For More Information ________________________________________________________________________ THE LATEST NEWS In an effort to improve privacy and security on the Internet, a bi-partisan group of legislators recently introduced a bill to encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy-to-use encryption technologies. The bill, known as the Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) act of 1996 (S. 1726), would relax Cold War era export controls which have constrained the development and use of strong privacy and security technologies. Encryption is one of the technologies that will allow us to visualize a secure Internet, an Internet useful for conducting all sorts of private business from communicating with one's doctor, loved one, or spouse, to checking one's bank balance. S.1726 is sponsored by Senators Burns (R-MT), Leahy (D-VT), Pressler (R-SD), Wyden (D-OR), Ashcroft (R-MO), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), McCain (R-AZ), and Murray (D-WA). The Pro-CODE Act resolves to: 1. Allow for the *unrestricted* export of "mass-market" or "public-domain" encryption programs, including such products as Pretty Good Privacy and popular World Wide Web browsers. 2. Requires the Secretary of Commerce to allow the less restricted export of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are generally available outside the United States, roughly up to DES strength. 3. Prohibits the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow encryption policies on the domestic market and limiting the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. A copy of the legislation can be found at each of the WWW sites listed at the bottom in the "For More Information" Section. ________________________________________________________________________ WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW As more and more people come online, the need for - and lack of - strong privacy and security is becoming increasingly critical. This legislation represents an important step towards ensuring that the Internet develops into a secure, trusted medium for political, commercial, and private speech. The co-sponsors of S. 1726 have taken a political risk and are challenging the White House, the NSA (National Security Agency, and the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) in a policy battle to protect your privacy. They need your support. Please familiarize yourself with the bill (pointers to background information are listed below), and then take a moment to call, write, or fax the sponsors of the bill and thank them for their leadership on this issue. 1. Call/Fax/Email Senate sponsors and thank them P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R MT Burns, Conrad R. 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 conrad_burns(a)burns.senate.gov D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 larry_pressler(a)pressler.senate.gov D OR Wyden, Ron 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-2717 R MO Ashcroft, John 1-202-224-6154 na john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov R KS Dole, Robert 1-202-224-6521 1-202-228-1245 R NC Faircloth, D. M. 1-202-224-3154 1-202-224-7406 senator(a)faircloth.senate.gov R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-224-2862 senator_mccain(a)mccain.senate.gov D WA Murray, Patty 1-202-224-2621 1-202-224-0238 senator_murray(a)murray.senate.gov 2. Use sample communication SAMPLE PHONE CALL You:<ring ring> Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! You:Hi, I'd like to thank the Senator for helping to introduce legislation to lift the export controls on encryption. I won't use Clipper and don't think there's enough strong encryption on the Internet to protect my messages. Strong, non-Clipper encryption is needed to secure communications with my doctor, bank, spouse, and attorney. Sen:Ok, thanks!<click> 3. Let VTW know what sort of response you got Just drop us a line at vtw(a)vtw.org and let us know how your phone call went! 4. Forward this to your friends and colleagues. Unlike the debate over free speech, many netizens still do not know much about the issues of security and privacy on the Internet. Take the time to explain to a friend why security on the Internet is important. ________________________________________________________________________ CRYPTO FACTOID According to a 1993 study of encryption products worldwide, there are 193 products in 18 countries overseas that are sold with DES-strength encryption built into them. American companies and American programmers are today restricted from selling products with DES-strength encryption to the overseas market, or even distributing them domestically on the Internet. It is becoming extremely difficult for American companies to compete in the global market against competitors who do not labor under such restrictions. Source: Joint study with Dr. Lance Hoffman, Trusted Information Systems (http://www.tis.com) and the Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org) Study updated December 1995 and is available at http://www.tis.com/crypto/survey.html. ________________________________________________________________________ CHRONOLOGY OF THE 1996 CRYPTO BILLS 5/2/96 Bi-partisan group of Senators introduce Pro-CODE Act, which would free public-domain encryption software (such as PGP) for export, free much commercial encryption for export, and reduce the government's ability to push Clipper proposals down the throats of an unwilling public. Original sponsors include: Senators Burns (R-MT), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Pressler (R-SD), and Wyden (D-OR). 3/5/96 Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) announce encryption bills (S.1587/H.R.3011) that significantly relax export restrictions on products with encryption functionality in them, as well as free public domain software such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). ________________________________________________________________________ FOR MORE INFORMATION There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on crypto including the following WWW sites: www.privacy.org www.crypto.com www.eff.org www.cdt.org www.epic.org www.vtw.org Please visit them often. Several organizations are working hard to support your right to have access to strong, effective encryption. We have all collaborated on this alert, funneling it through a single editor. Please address any press queries DIRECTLY to the organizations directly. The editors *do not* speak for the coalition as a whole. Here is an alphabetical list of the coalition members: American Civil Liberties Union Center for Democracy and Technology Computer Professionals for Electronic Frontier Foundation Social Responsibility HotWired / Wired Magazine Electronic Privacy Information Center People for the American Way *Voters Telecommunications Watch *Editors ________________________________________________________________________ End alert ========================================================================

1 0

Re: Defeating fingerprints
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Burglars and safecrackers sand the ridges off. > > This sounds like it'd work, but quite tedious. > Two words - "power tools" !!! ;-) I've sanded my finger tips down rather well with a belt sander and a fine grit belt on numerous occasions. While I've speculated that I probably wouldn't leave much of a finger print, I've never actually tried to take prints after such an operation. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

RE: Why does the state still stand:
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:04 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 14 May 1996, blanc wrote: > >> From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously] >> >> It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can >> think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and >> workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say >> ultimate) cypherpunk model. >> ..................................................................... >> >> I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it comes at a >>time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the defeatist attitude of some >>cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill >>of Rights regarding the subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence >>(heh). >> >> 3 problems which immediately come to mind: >> >> . What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides >in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine >government agency)? > >The entire organization would clearly have to be double blinded. If this >can be done for mailing lists (which I believe it can) it can be done for >corporations too. The real trick is getting the costs of anonymous (and I >mean secure anonymous) communications low enough. If all you need to do is beat the cost of commuting 20 miles/day, no problem. >> . What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting >> Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards >> getting their expected remuneration for work done? > >If payment is made weekly, it should be made in advance to an escrow agent >who would issue a certificate that the payment for employee r2dd54 has >been received. The payment would then not be released to anyone without >the consent of the corporation and the employee. > >Obviously the escrow agent would have to be trusted. > >... > >Even if a payment gets hung up in a dispute, it's only for a week. You could require daily payment and forgo the escrow agent. (Assuming you are willing to risk a day's pay as an experiment in reputation.) Note that AP won't work if everyone is anonymous because you won't have a target. What may be a problem for such a company is a social problem. All the creative groups I have worked with have had close personal relations. (Although they have not had wide agreement on significant non-work subjects!) I don't know if good, creative, group-produced products can be built without such a relationship. Does anyone know of an example of such a product from an "anonymous" environment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

More involuntary c'punk subscriptions on the way?
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the May '96 issue of Computer Security Alert, Padgett Peterson provides an explanation of how mail bombing is done. It's on page 3 under the "E-mail Security" column with the headline "Mad Bombers on the Net." In the article, Padgett explains the three "stages" of mail bombing: First is to send ungodly amounts of mail from you to the target, the next is to post something offensive under a forged ID to one or more of the "less ruly" [his words] USENET groups, such as alt.2600 or alt.tasteless [his citations], and the third is to subscribe people to mailing lists against their will using forged e-mail. Naturally, Padgett (bless his twisted little mind) indicates that the most severe results can be achieved by sending forged subscription requests to "the larger listservers such as cypherpunks", that generate in excess of a hundred messages a day. Since hackers and wannabes probably read INFOSEC publications with more zeal than do INFOSEC practitioners, I'd say we're likely to be in for even more of the "I don't want to be on this list" sorts of traffic. And Padgett, next time you get interviewed on mail bombing by the press, why don't you point them to "The KISS Army Mailing List," or something of that sort? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Liberty is truly dead |Mark Aldrich | | when the slaves are willing |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | | to forge their own chains. |maldrich(a)grci.com | | STOP THE CDA NOW! |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Why does the state still stand:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:35 PM 5/14/96 -0700, Hal wrote: >I think the intention then is to create "fully anonymous" companies. >These would be organizations whose principals and employees are known >only by pseudonyms, even to each other. Their only contact is >electronic, via an anonymous network. And the employees are paid in >anonymous ecash, which they don't pay taxes on since it is unreported >income. > >These companies produce products or services which they offer for sale >across the net. They accept payment in ecash, either from end users or >from other companies. > >Such companies would be illegal, with everyone involved subject to >criminal penalties for tax evasion (and no doubt a myriad of other >violations). But because the anonymity is protected cryptographically, >the government is helpless to learn the true identities of anyone >involved. The companies continue to successfully sell their products >and services, advertising and recruiting openly from anonymous sources, >and there is nothing the government can do about it. The goal, obviously, is to make the cost of collection of $1 in taxes sufficiently expensive so that they can't do it economically. But let me draw an analogy: The easiest form of shooting is paper target practice: The target is fixed. More difficult is trap and skeet, where the target moves. More difficult still is hunting, where the target (animals) is at least somewhat intelligent and usually very mobile, as well as camouflaged. This is analogous to encryption. But the most difficult form of shooting is war, in which the "target" can shoot back. If a computer model could be constructed of it, I think you'd find that the most effective way to avoid taxation is to invest money to target those doing the collection. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it would probably cost less than 10 cents to prevent the collection of $1 worth of tax, and probably closer to a penny. Any analysis of the destruction of the state is incomplete without considering such a scenario. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1